The first group session of the day saw participants engaging with the initial 14 mechanisms proposed in the discussion paper provided prior to the session. In the session after lunch the group discussed where the gaps were and what mechanisms were missed. This led to a group of 5 new mechanisms being added.
Below you will see the top 6 mechanisms as preferred by participants and focused on in the final session of the day. For this process, secondments and the project-based fellowships were merged into one broad mechanism. In this final session, in small groups, Professor Vromen encouraged participants to think more deeply about what these mechanisms might look like. She posed 4 key questions:
- Who provides the resourcing?
- How would it work in practice?
- How would you get buy-in from both APS and Universities?
- Who evaluates effectiveness?
Mechanism 1: Cross-APS/academia conference
This was one of the first new mechanisms to be discussed. A range of different engagement mechanisms were explored. It could be a conference/knowledge sharing event that would be used to discuss policy processes, such as collaboration, or an opportunity to focus on specific subject areas. Either the APS or academia could potentially provide resourcing. Academic groups running conferences might explore new ways of including or inviting the public sector to participate, and departments might choose to invite people to share through panels or seminars. It was proposed that the key was a clear articulation of purpose, although arguably this purpose could be relational or cultural. It could be an opportunity to break down silo’s and move beyond transactional processes where outcomes or outputs are required. Instead, it could be a chance to explore new ways of sharing with each other.
Mechanism 2: Explore ways to share impact
This was also a new mechanism although it was less defined what the mechanism itself would look like and more of a principle to be explored. The group explored new ways of sharing policy engagement moving beyond just the final policy outcomes. Is there a way for policy makers to communicate to researchers when their work has been part of a policy brief? A question on notice? Essentially, how could the public sector more effectively recognise when research influences policy – beyond the final policy outcome. Some potential mechanisms were considered, using something akin to LinkedIn’s ‘endorsed skills’ or the Web of Science Researcher profiles – where academics receive recognition for undertaking journal reviews. However, the group involved in discussing this idea were not confident this would be sufficiently rewarding for relationship building, and may be onerous on the public service.
It was recognised that this was an area of interest to the research sector and that Universities were likely to be exploring tools and metrics that would allow for better recognition of policy impact – but the main suggestion the group proposed on the day was for the possible consideration of including APS staff as a reference for academic employment or promotion.
Mechanism 3: Expert panel
Panel arrangements are commonly used by governments and are an arrangement where specific suppliers are selected, usually through a competitive process, to be put on a list from which a department or departments can then procure services. These suppliers will usually agree on a set price for services, a type of service to provide and the manner by which the service will be obtained (i.e. will there be competition or can they be procured directly). This mechanism would be a panel of experts/academics who could then be approached directly for short-term contracts to provide advice or small-scale collaborations. This was intended to address the gap identified by the group that building a collaborative relationship generally involves significant unpaid labour by the researcher. Alternatively, the APS first engages the researcher after the project goes to tender. This means that the project is already significantly developed, missing out on important early input that could have been provided.
There were many positives. It could provide official recognition of the researcher’s expertise, recognition which would be viewed highly within academia. It could allow for the APS to seek advice early. It did however raise risks of how transactional this could become. While the researcher may be paid for their time, there is little guarantee of developing larger, more collaborative projects. There is also a risk that this could exclude many academics, especially early career researchers (who lack experience) or those with less flexible work. The important question to consider is how this could be used in a way to support inclusive and collaborative working.
Mechanism 4: Knowledge brokers hub
A hub could pilot a series of relationship management approaches and knowledge broker functions (some discussed in this paper) to identify researchers with an APS-relevant focus and facilitate pathways to connect researchers and public servants. Knowledge brokers connect researchers and practitioners and help them better understand one another to identify shared objectives and promote knowledge exchange. A hub mechanism could provide a whole-of-service offering for the APS, enabling policy officers to identify research partners in their field.
When asked how it would work and who would provide resourcing, participants responded that this would need to be a government initiative – funded by government. It would need to have ministerial or at least senior executive support to succeed. The initial years would be a trial, with the goal to be to establish it as a statutory authority. The process would look like a hub and spoke model, with a central hub, within a central agency, and departmental ‘spokes’. This implies it could be combined with the Chief Knowledge Officers model outlined in the workshop discussion paper, as well as a ‘research agenda’.
Some of the concerns included the risk of focusing on individual knowledge brokers – with a strong preference for this operating as a centralised, specialised unit. This would also allow for continuity for people working with the hub. There were concerns about the resourcing costs versus the rewards, although again, the potential for secondments, fellowships or PhD internships could be explored here. The risk of gatekeeping or bias, depending on the agency that resources the hub, was also discussed. In particular it would be important to ensure a breadth of expertise was encouraged.
Mechanism 5: Project focused fellowship program/secondments
Under this model, the APS would establish a new fellowship program for academics to join a department for a short-term secondment and work collaboratively with a policy team on a particular policy topic. A secondment could also include members of the public sector moving into an academic environment such as in the National Security College at ANU (although the discussion focused exclusively on researchers in the APS). These secondments could also be project-specific, or broader. A key part of this mechanism would include establishing formal rules and explicitly outlining expectations – as secondments have been shown to be less likely to be effectively utilised when left to be arranged by individuals.
Participants in this group focused predominantly on how this might work in practice. It was proposed that this would be a useful tool for providing researchers with exposure to the policy environment and APS priorities. It could help in building empathy across the divide. It would be best if the program was used to link participants into a community or cohort of fellows/secondees, and that this cohort receive a suite of training/skills development to help build capacity.
Participants acknowledged that there is similar work happening already i.e. PM&C summer internships, ARC Industry Fellowships. A researcher-in-residence is also currently a system used by some departments. How would this be different? More information could be collected about existing practices and lessons learned.
Some of the key questions raised were around how a secondee or fellow would retain/ensure the right to publish and remain independent? How would they deal with potential conflicts of interest? We don’t want to accidentally exclude people from being able to tender for work.
Some key concerns included the fact that follow through from these types of projects/secondments is often quite limited. How do you create a supportive community, rather than just leaving it to individuals? Would a team working in with government have to facilitate to avoid it being limited to one university?
Do you risk excluding people who might offer dissenting or critical perspectives or those who do not have capacity to take a ‘career-break’.
Mechanism 6: Better procurement processes
This recommendation was an addition on the day and reflected a very practical view. It was recognised that current procurement models often explicitly prevent meaningful collaboration. Some of the concerns and treatments raised included:
- Increasing the transparency of contracts
- Contracts are heavily standardised, and changing them requires time and effort
- Removing restrictions on publication as standard practice
- Feedback is not often provided after tendering, and when it is, it is very superficial.
It was suggested that the Commonwealth Contracting Suite could be used more effectively to develop more flexible templates. This could involve providing more training to APS staff. It could also be useful to use the expert panels discussed above – where academics would be able to be contracted more readily to undertake small-scale work. Being part of a panel could also trigger a security clearance process, for ease later on.
Importantly, these were acknowledged as minor tweaks that could improve how relationships develop between the APS and academia. It wasn’t inherently a collaborative mechanism. It was more about bringing down existing barriers. Whether this is about changing the contracts or the mindsets is, ultimately, unclear at this stage.